Shift4 Payments vs Global Payments
FOUR and GPN side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FOUR and GPN compare
Global Payments is the larger company, worth 8.1 times as much as Shift4 Payments ($25.6B against $3.2B).
Global Payments grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.5% versus 32.4% for Shift4 Payments).
Shift4 Payments keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.2% compared with −9.1% at Global Payments.
Global Payments pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Shift4 Payments does not pay one.
Global Payments scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 8 for Shift4 Payments), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | FOUR | GPN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.2B | $25.6B |
| Share price | $40.03 | $96.84 |
| Change, 1 year | −42.8% | 22.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −34.0% | −29.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.56 | 1.22 |
| Employees | 6,300 | 26K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 2.0× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.1× (better) | 11.8× |
| P/FCF | 5.5× (better) | 31.1× |
| FCF yield | 18.1% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $94.52 | $128.18 |
| Margin of safety | 57.6% (better) | 24.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 32.4% | 32.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 40.4% (better) | 0.75% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −52.4% (better) | −165% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −152% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 24.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.9% | 63.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | 12.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.2% (better) | −9.1% |
| FCF margin | 12.0% (better) | 8.0% |
| Return on equity | 6.6% (better) | −4.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.9% (better) | 2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.79 | 0.97 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.52 (better) | 4.64 |
| Interest coverage | 1.5× (better) | 1.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.21 (better) | 0.82 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.91 (better) | 0.66 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 5.1% |
| Buyback yield | 19.8% (better) | 6.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 19.8% (better) | 7.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.5% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 30.3% | 16.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $32.3M (better) | −$153K |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 26.5% | 6.8% |
Go deeper
- FOUR stock overview
- FOUR income statement
- FOUR valuation and score
- GPN stock overview
- GPN income statement
- GPN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.